This was posted elsewhere by our poster White GeNOcide:
A prime purpose of yesterday’s hearing was to propagate Chairman Deutch’s favored anti-white meme, “White Nationalist terrorism.” Check out the first few minutes of Chairman Deutch’s opening remarks. Anti-whites are very conscious meme-makers!
We’ve told pro-whites forever to drop the obscure term “white nationalist” and use “pro-white.” Ordinary white people have no idea what you mean by “white nationalist.” For them the term is a blank slate, that anti-whites can write ANYTHING on.
So now Chairman Deutch and the rest of the anti-white mob get to easily lie and associate you with something that you have zero truck with, terrorism:
“White Nationalism should be considered terrorism.” (Ilhan Omar)
Ridiculous, but wouldn’t this sound even more ridiculous?
“Being pro-white should be considered terrorism.”
Not that anti-whites wouldn’t say that, but “pro-white” clearly carries the explicit meaning of acting in ways that support whites. When anti-whites repeat the term they subliminally urge whites to do just that. They also set you up to reply:
Pro-whites oppose White Genocide, anti-whites support White Genocide.
It’s way past time to start listening to Bob Whitaker’s wisdom: White Nationalist or Pro-White?
Bob wrote that in 2013. Six years later, pro-whites are still calling themselves “white nationalists,” which as Bob mentions, anti-whites love.
You think Chairman Deutch doesn’t love it??
Use “pro-white.” Then you can post things like the image below, which you can drag to your desktop and then post on Twitter, etc.
___________
See also this superb communique that eyeslevel sent the Committee!
Impressive how this site keeps a full-court press to give other pro-whites the startling information that terminology is important.
I also note that Chairman Deutch’s bio offers no surprises, nor does Chairman Rose’s.
The movement block-heads will go to the gulags ignoring Bob Whitaker. Just before they are disappeared for good, they will shout, we were right! Then no one will remember them.
A couple of comments from Committee members during the hearing:
“‘Immigrant invasion’ — that’s the rhetoric of terrorism.” (Mr. Malinowski, at time 1:29:29 — 1:30:00)
“White Nationalism should be considered terrorism.” (Ilhan Omar, at time 1:51:21)
A second joint Congressional committee held a hearing today on roughly the same topic:
House Oversight Joint Subcommittee Hearing on Confronting White Supremacy | C-SPAN.org
In this clip, witness Candace Owens beats up on witness Kathleen Belew pretty bad:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1175081910726463488
Dr. Belew‘s opening sentence shows her high regard for herself:
“As one of the only scholars who has studied this troubling phenomenon deeply, and has historical knowledge of its patterns and…” (17:52)
The third witness, Georgetown University Law professor Joshua Geltzer, said this:
“For tech companies, it means policing their platforms, to remove not just incitement to violence, but also the ideological foundations that spawn such violence.” (27:28)
In a nice Orwellian touch, Geltzer is also the founding Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.
@ Luke:
“I also note that Chairman Deutch’s bio offers no surprises, nor does Chairman Rose’s.”
Nor does the bio of the second hearing’s chairman, Jamie Raskin.
Anti-whites who take care to always exhibit a persona of balanced reasonableness invariably preface their opposition to free speech with a statement that they support free speech. This concluding statement by the third witness (the curly-haired woman, I didn’t get her name) in the second hearing is a bit in that mode:
“…whatever we do in encountering violent white supremacy…needs to be mindful of our Constitution and our First Amendment, but there is an important difference between the types of ideas that lead to violence and the type of ideas we’re comfortable with people holding.” (at 2:52:04)
Of course she’s speaking more or less extemporaneously, but still…if it was a slip, it was a slip that revealed her actual position. These people are the quiet fascists who work diligently to shut you up because you make them uncomfortable.
They’re horrified that anyone would openly express views that they fundamentally oppose.
They’re horrified that in 2019 any person would openly oppose White Genocide.
And they understand that any government that is carrying out a genocide against its own people can’t allow free speech.
@Sylvie:
“White Nationalism should be considered terrorism.” (Ilhan Omar, at time 1:51:21)
Here’s a 20 second video clip of Ilhan Omar saying that:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1174530565674024960
We are Pro-Whites, not “White Nationalists” – Fight White Genocide
Don’t choose a name that anti-whites can redefine!
Here’s an excerpt from an excellent comment on another site — I edited it and added boldfacing:
Dr. Geltzer (see WHITE GENOCIDE’s first comment above) testifying:
I think these points made just above are very good:
“Pro-white” is hard for anti-whites to redefine, and easy for an individual to defend. You just keep saying, “I like white people,” and “I want white well-being,” and things like that.
“White nationalist” is a fancier term that requires some explanation. That’s bad; if you are explaining, you are losing.
But as the article points out, far better than replying with those suggested phrases is to meet challenges to “pro-white” with this meme that’s in red:
The moral high ground belongs to pro-whites who oppose anti-whites and their program of White Genocide, not to so-called “anti-racists” who label whites as “racist.”
Pingback: We are Pro-Whites, not "White Nationalists" - Fight White Genocide
I agree when dealing with normies to use the most basic stripped down terms.But nationalism is defined already as 1:devotion to one’s nation; patriotism. 2:the advocacy of national independence.Further more nationality is 1:the status of belonging to a nation by birth.If they can redefine any word they can redefine them all.I am a stickler for definitions.The anti-whites aren’t lexicographers.Their definitions are forced down people’s throat in court of public opinion.But anyone can challenge their definitions.They look really dumb when you pull up Webster’s & show they’re misusing a word.Just a thought.
One last point on this subject.Someone above says to own your words gives you power.So I own the term white nationalist.My nation is those who are white.The anti-white slander of attaching terror to WN has a flaw.They really mean white terror.Nationalism is beside the point.But if they said white terror it implies all whites.So they throw in the nationalist part to mask their anti-white agenda.Because by saying nationalist it implies a select group they wish to target.But by definition being anti-white nationalism is anti-whiteism.Don’t let them take that one like they did alt-right.